There’s an issue of judicial discretion in the Virginia case. No previous offense had received more than ninety days locally; here, the parents pled guilty and were sentenced to eight years, and the reduction to 27 months only partially alleviates the injustice. Of the sixteen teens, seven had no alcohol, and nine were below the legal limit.

OK, I went and read through th whole story, and here’s another good example of what I’m talking about:

“Kelly said she believed the kids were going to drink regardless. She reasoned that supplying the alcohol and keeping them home would be safer than having them out drinking and driving.”

followed by this:

“Camblos, who has made curbing underage drinking part of this year’s reelection campaign, denied any political motivation. “Politics had nothing to do with it. I’ve seen too many photographs of teenagers being killed in car wrecks because of drinking and driving.””

and this:

“The couple pleaded guilty in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and Camblos recommended a 90-day sentence at the time. But the judge, angry about the recent death of one of Ryan’s classmates at Albemarle High School in an alcohol-related crash, sentenced them to eight years.”

So, because kids die in alcohol-related car wrecks (that the authorities don’t seem to have much success in stopping), they put in prison someone who took a much more effective step in reducing drinking and driving?

RE: Retardation.
If someone has been placed under guardianship because of retardation, any act he commits is the responsibility of his guardian. If he has been walking around free, he pays like someone free. If a blind man gets behind the wheel and kills somebody, it is no defense to claim blindness.

You seem to have a utilitarian view of criminal law, i.e., it’s OK to break the law if there is a possible benefit to people. So if I rob a bank to feed the poor, it’s OK? I’m just trying to figure out where you draw the line.

The other part of your argument is that if people are going to commit a crime, it’s OK to help them do it safely. So if your kids are out committing armed home invasions, it’s OK if you help them commit unarmed B & Es instead.

The last part of your argument is most disturbing. Your entire argument is based on the premise the kids never follow the law so you might as well give up and join in. There’s no reason for me to respond to that.

I didn’t say it’s okay to break the law. I questioned the decision that this particular violation merited an 800% increase in penalty, or the devotion of scarce societal resources to disrupt this particular family for this particular crime. The utility of the law itself is yet another question.

Note that while the Virginia mom received 27 months in jail just for serving booze at her son’s party, a Tennessee Pastor’s wife will receive only a few months in jail for killing her husband by shooting him in the back while he lay in bed. (See
“Woman Who Killed Husband Might Serve Only 60 Days,” Washington Post, June 9).

Isn’t our criminal justice system insane? You get less penalty for killing your husband than you do for serving booze to minors.

The Tennessee example is not an isolated incident. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study of large urban counties, wives who kill their husbands without provocation get an average of only 7 years in prison.

By contrast, husbands who kill their wives get a more reasonable 17 years on average. The grossly indulgent treatment of husband-killers seems to reflect deeply ingrained gender-bias.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has noted that gender-bias in favor of female defendants is commonplace in the federal courts as well.

Sorry, Ima, but there is not even an allegation that anyone was harmed by what the mother did. And your notion that her punishment is justified by crimes she is not alleged to have committed is ridiculous.

1) Breaking the law is, generally, a bad idea; however, the law is an IMPERFECT mechanism with a specific aim, and in this case, the mechanism misses the point. Also, just for the record, the odds of any poster on this forum not having personally broken a law in th last week is incredibly small (that’s how many ridiculous laws we have).

2) Even ignoring #1, taking action against the parent in this case, while NOT taking significant action against “unsupervised” parties is quite ridiculous.

3) Even ignoring 1 & 2, increasing the sentence for an activity that was spcifically designed to PREVENT drunk driving bcause the sentencer wants to prevent drunk driving (or prosecuting the case because one wants to be seen as being against drunk driving for political advantage) is, to put it as mildly and politely as possible, missing the entire point.

One can say that the actions of the court and prosecution in this case are ridiculous without necessarily endorsing what is being prosecuted.

Minors drink. 50+ years of trying to get thm to quit has failed spectacularly. If stopping drunk DRIVING is more important than stopping drinking (and I would hope that’s universally acknowledged), action against this particular couple is counterproductive (again, trying to be polite in word choice).

The issue is whether it’s okay to break the law when doing so will in fact replace a greater harm with a lesser one. If the madman is going to push the button to blow up a stadium full of people, you shoot him through the hostage.

“You seem to have a utilitarian view of criminal law, i.e., it’s OK to break the law if there is a possible benefit to people.”

If I have to trespass and steal your crowbar to get a child out of a burning car, I’m going to do it. And if the law charges me with trespass, the law is an ass.

Regarding the drinking case, I think the woman should have had some prison time. But what no one is mentioning here is that the 8-10 year sentence (that she originally got) is more time than most drunk drivers get for causing fatalities. I can’t see how the prosecution or the judge could possibly have justified such a ridiculously harsh sentence. Unfortunately, it was strongly supported by the local chapter of MADD, which means that MADD has now lost some of my support.

“I can’t see how the prosecution or the judge could possibly have justified such a ridiculously harsh sentence.”

You know another thing we can’t see: the name of the idiot who handed diown the eight-year sentence. The name is conspicuously absent from every story I could find. Eventually, I find a story that mentioned the name of the appellate judge, but the trial judge’s anonymity is preserved.